http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166729&title=exit-strategy&to=2

"In 2001, there was a memo -- Bin Laden determined to attack United States from a safe haven in Afghanistan. . .

Now 7 years and $700 billion later, we get a new memo saying Bin Landen determined to attack United States from a safe haven somewhere around Afghanistan. . .

We are right back where we started. We could have gotten here by doing nothing."

- - Rob Riggle, senior military analyst, on TDS

Somebody or somebodies are going to get fired, not for lying or malfeasance, but because they didn’t destroy the emails as required in the Busheviks’ SOPs.

I just listened to the interview with Brown. He comes off as fairly reasonable, and kudos to you for setting this up. But I think you need work as an interviewer.

If I were Glenn...

1. I would see if I could get Bill Moyers (I was going to say "someone like Bill Moyers" but he is sui generis, IMO) to critique my style. Bill has a way of asking the toughest of questions in the nicest of ways. Bill starts out by establishing a rapport with his interviewee and works inward from there.

2. For example, you might have started by asking Brown a bit about his current job and move from that to get him to talk about his views of what a journalist should do and what journalim is. His answers on this could guide you in building up to questions about the ways in which wartime journalism differs from other types of journalism - you get the idea.

3. I would have made notes when I read through the transcripts of Brown's shows and counted the number of pro-invasion vs. anti-invasion guests. Numbers tell the story of balance or imbalance.

4. And don't let him squirm out of tough questions. He essentially changed the subject when he started talking about how the anti-war movement didn't have the kind of focus you need to make it "easy" (Brown's word) to cover. So what - Brown and his producers should have known about Scott Ritter, Noam Chomsky and others who would have provided balance. The issue was not whether it was easier to show bombs going off than demonstrations in the park. The issue was why they were using almost exclusively pro-invasion people to spout government propaganda.

I got Glenn's latest book, read it and loved it - great job. I think Glenn is on the cusp of very big things.

But I sure hope Glenn gets some professional feedback on interviewing. I am sure it is tough to do, tough to focus on what the other person is saying, and also focus on the questions you want to explore.

But it can be done.

I was kidding. I know you weren't referring to Iranians goat herders---I meant to suggest that our F-22s were for killing Iranians, not Baluchi and Pashtun tribesmen.

Hope that's cleared up. The title of my post, I can't explain. But wouldn't they be useful if we were really fighting al Qaeda?

if we "really were" fighting al Qaeda.

From the beginning of the Bushevik regime, the "principals" treated the military as their private armed forces, to do with as they chose, and what they chose, from all the indications -- and a good deal of eye-witness testimony -- was to 'finish' Iraq. From the very first week of their seizure of the government, the Busheviks were plotting and planning the invasion and occupation (well, invasion, anyway) of Iraq. Little else mattered to them.

Cheney was in charge from the outset. His program, as described by Lincoln Chaffee, was to behave as the complete opposite of the "humble" foreign policy Bush had campaigned on.

They were indeed blindsided by Osama and his band of suicide killers, but not to worry, it was only an Opportunity to take even greater strides toward that longed-for New American Century.

They had command of the armed forces, and they could do anything they wanted to anyone anywhere at any time, so long as the officers toed the line.

Those who didn't were booted out.

Toeing the line meant pledging fealty to the Person of Bush Himself (who of course was controlled by Cheney, so the Pledge was also to Cheney Himself.) We saw again and again and again the military used as willing props, acting out their loyalty to Him -- not to the Constitution or to the American People. That loyalty to the Person would be repaid with abuse. Endless, crippling, and often criminal abuse.

But they're volunteers, right?

And if Petraeus has any designs on becoming Deified himself, no doubt he will carry out whatever crazed and disastrous orders he is given from the Cheney Bunkers, and do it gladly.

These people are deep, deep down the dark well.

http://hodes.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1522

Congressman Hodes Calls for Hearing on Bush Administration Manipulation of Iraq War News Analysts

April 24, 2008

Today, Congressman Hodes officially called on Chairman John Tierney of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs to hold a hearing on a recent New York Times story published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 on how Department of Defense officials used undue influence with former military officers serving as “independent” military analysts commenting on developments on the war in Iraq for network news stations. The Department of Defense used these analysts to manipulate public opinion toward supporting the Administration’s policy in the War in Iraq.

A hearing also could examine whether some of these analysts were given military contracts with the Defense Department in exchange for reading Bush Administration talking points on the public airwaves.

[...]

http://hodes.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1522

Re the suicidal vets. I know somone who counsels/treats vets with mental health troubles . Just judging by the emergency calls this person got, before all this started, in the relatively (out of 24/7) short time in my presence, 800/yr seems waaaayyy low . I'll ask what # seems more reasonable at next opportunity. (soon I hope)

Che, it was developed in 19-freakin-92! ( and you know what memory elephants have!;) Updated , periodically, of course, but basically planned then . 9/11 was just a convenient excuse . Search P.N.A.C. It's still ongoing ( see Somalia), and they're not shy about it . 3 wars down (sort of ) 27+/- to go .

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm